The 3 R's: Reading, Writing, and Reasoning

Probably nothing gives the nation's
schools more grief than the persistent
issue of literacy. Again and
again, the tide of criticism takes
the schools to task for the superficial
reading skills and impoverished writing
abilities of American youths, and almost
predictably the National Assessment
of Educational Progress comes up with new
evidence to strengthen the hands of the critics.
Yet earnest endeavor and heavy investment
have evidently realized little but
modest gains. The literacy of the young is
still wanting.

Now comes "Learning To Be Literate in
America: Reading, Writing, and Reasoning."
The intent of the report is to explicate
the NAEP probes of reading and writing
achievement, and make recommendations.
For the task, the authors--Arthur N. Applebee,
Judith A. Langer, and Ina V. S.
Mullis--are eminently well qualified,
though remarkably mild-mannered in carrying
it out. Recalling the 1970's as an "era
of emphasis on the 'basics,' " they suggest
that "exclusive emphasis on the basics may
be delaying attention to helping students
develop effective reasoning skills." (See Education
Week, March 18, 1987.)

Perhaps restraint of this kind avoids
alienating those who have spent so much
time and energy, and so many dollars, beefing
up reading and writing skills. But the
fact is that the schools, committed to an obsolete
conception of literacy, have been
fighting a rear-guard action that prevents
the young from cultivating that function of
the mind called "thinking."

But never mind. "Learning To Be Literate
in America" advances a significantly
different view of literacy from the view that
drives the schools, and for that, if nothing
else, the report deserves high marks.

The schools hold fast to the conception of
literacy as an essentially mechanical function.
Although many have admitted enlightened
practices such as the phonics approach
to reading and the process approach
to writing, when the chip are down they
pass students along as literate on demonstration
of their ability to recognize commonplace
words and compose correctly
written sentences that say nothing of consequence.

Those who squeak by such a limited standard don't crack 700 on the verbal section of
the Scholastic Aptitude Test and go to Harvard; but they do pass proficiency or competency
tests and graduate from high schools
all over the country.

By contrast, "Learning To Be Literate in
America" holds firmly to a definition of literacy
as "the ability to read and write, and
to reason about what one reads or writes"
(emphasis added). That is a long stride beyond
the notion prevailing in the schools today.
If it falls short of acknowledging literacy
as an essentially intellectual function,
the definition nevertheless insists that
reading and writing involve more than mechanical skills learned by drill and by rote.

It helps to remember that language itself
is not just an appliance one plugs in from
time to time to close the circuit of communication.
Language is the peculiarly human
property that gives Homo sapiens dominion
over the beasts of the field. The beasts can
communicate, but people can make sense and
language is their chief means of making
sense.

They use words to give substance, and
configurations of words form to the ideas
that arise in their minds. The literate--or
lettered--person is one who can make sense
with language in print. One reads to determine
the sense others have made: In writing,
one puts language together to make
one's own sense.

One may "reason about what one reads or
writes" after the reading or writing is done,
but I believe that reasoning is an integral
part of the process--the very act--of reading
or writing. Without reasoning in the act
of reading, there is no making sense of
"complicated literary and informational
material such as might be encountered in a
high-school text" (to borrow a specific from
"Learning To Be Literate").

Writing puts students in the way of
thinking as no other so-called "learning activity"
quite does, or can do. Given a worthwhile
assignment, each has, first, to single
out pieces of learning he has gathered from
instruction and discussion, from reading
and experience; then he must put the pieces
together in language that makes sense of
the assignment. The singling out requires
analysis and decisionmaking; the putting
together, which involves more decisionmaking,
is an exercise in synthesis or problem-
solving.

These are all facets of literacy; and if to
distinguish them from "the basics" they become
labeled "higher literacy," watch out.
What is higher today had better be basic
tomorrow, or America will have passed the
point of no return.

Eight years ago, in Less Than Words Can
Say, Richard Mitchell asserted, "The elaborate
and technological civilization we must
operate requires millions of people able to
construct and follow discursive thought."
This year, in his foreword to "Learning To
Be Literate in America," David T. Kearns,
the chairman and chief executive officer of
Xerox Corporation, writes: "The basic skills
of our entry-level workers are simply not
good enough to give us the kind of workforce
we need to compete in a fiercely competitive
global market. This is no less than
a survival issue for America."

The report makes two broadside recommendations--both unquestionably valid, but
neither startling. Having identified the children
from some groups as less likely to become
literate--black and Hispanic children,
children from disadvantaged urban communities,
and those of parents with little education--the report first recommends "targeted
help for the variety of at-risk populations."

Second, it recommends that "we modify
our approaches so that more children will
learn to reason effectively about what they
read and write, giving them the thinking
skills to analyze, elaborate upon, and extend
the ideas with which they are dealing."

Nor, I regret to say, is the report really
helpful in suggesting what can be done. For
many policymakers, administrators, and
teachers, several of the suggestions will
have a tiresomely familiar ring. What administrators,
for instance, are not encouraging
and supporting teachers, providing
release time, and initiating curriculum reviews?
And a few strike me as out of touch
with reality. Have the authors, I wonder,
succeeded in persuading many teachers "to
cover fewer topics in order to provide time
for students to explore particular topics in
more depth"?

I discount neither the long-term role of
policymakers in bringing literacy up
to par nor the initiative that teachers
must take, but I believe that just now,
school administrators have the critical
role. Principals, superintendents, and
their deputies are the chief dramatis personae
in the present scene, and they will
have to use the best management skills
they have, together with their authority.
Instead of suggesting action many suppose
they have already taken, I prefer to suggest
action they probably know they have not
taken.

I urge administrators actively to seek out
"teachers who want to adopt instructional
approaches and curriculum goals that will
foster effective reasoning." It is not enough
to wait for them to come forward or tum up.
These will be teachers of all subjects, not
only language arts and English; and the administrators
ought to make it plain that
while they are not expected to become
teachers of reading and writing, they are
expected to help and require students to
read and write appropriately for whatever
subjects they teach.

I also urge administrators to be hardnosed
and discriminating about the money
they commit for inservice training, resources,
and curriculum development.
They need always to be wary of paying for
fun and games in the guise of directed-learning
activities, and I believe they
should be wary of the latter-day enterprise
that purports to "infuse" or impose discrete
thinking skills on the curriculum.

I suggest they look to publications, people, and projects that are pointing the way
to literate learning: publishers with commendably
relevant lists, teacher consultants
from the National Writing Project,
and reliable consultants who are to be
found among teachers who have worked
with individuals doing seminal work in the
field of literacy.

I cannot say how important--or how difficult--it will be for administrators to strive
and hold out for curricula that afford time
for truly literate learning. There is so much
to teach and learn, and so much more every
year, that no one can say for sure precisely
what, or how much, students need to learn
in school. Yet within the schools and without,
pressure to cover it all is palpable, real,
and relentless. One can say for sure that until
the pressure is reduced, the prospect of a
truly literate generation of young people
will remain dim. Ultimately the issue of
coverage is a matter for policymakers; but
until policy provides a remedy, administrators
have no good alternative to acting on
their own authority.

Curriculum planners and teachers who
respond need more than the pat on the back
or release time that commonly constitutes
support. They need the powerful support of
principal and superintendents.

Principals can give parents authoritative
information about their schools' purposes
and practices with respect to literacy, and
go to bat for teachers if parents complain
when for the sake of literate learning they
omit a topic that appeared in a College
Board examination or decline to correct
mistakes in grammar and spelling on a
child's paper. Superintendents can speak
with their considerable authority to acquaint
business and civic leaders with the
requirements of literate learning, at once
keeping impertinent criticism at bay and
helping cultivate a supportive environment.

It goes without saying that administrators
themselves must have an informed
commitment to literate learning. Few
have come to their positions with particular expertise in the field of language and
literacy. Many have been caught in the
campaign for minimum competency. Most
would benefit from a thoroughgoing overview
of the theories and practices that can
bring reading, writing, and thinking
dependably together.

Speaking from my own experience leading
inservice programs on writing, superintendents
and principals often welcome me
aboard, and they have assured me, time
and again, of the merit and importance of
my work with teachers. I always encourage
them to join the group. Occasionally one
looks in; but never has a ranking school administrator
taken part.

These are busy men and women. Participating
with teachers in inservice programs
mayor may not be an effective use of their
time. One way or another, however, administrators
must have firsthand familiarity
with the most promising means of achieving
literacy. For if the chief actors on the
present scene fail to take their parts with
sophistication as well as authority, the outcome
will be tragic.

James Howard, formerly editor of Basic Education,
is co-author of Empty Pages: A
Search for Writing Competence in School
and Society and author of Writing To
Learn.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.